I hadn't received a call yet, so at 4pm today I called back and spoke to the office person again. Confirmed the bill is still with the House Ways and Means committee, and that there haven't been any changes to it yet, it's still in the same form as when house speaker DeLeo introduced it. They expect to make the decision on whether to pass H4121 out of committee at the end of next week. (he sounded like it was a foregone conclusion that it would) At that point, it would go to the House, where every rep has a chance to make amendments.
The office person was very nice, and said that Sean Garballey was an another call, but would get back to me by end of day, or on Monday. 15 minutes later, Sean called me back! I kept things very positive in an effort to find out as much as I could.
I asked what parts of the bill he liked most and least. He said he supported the mental health and background checks portions the most. He answer wasn't detailed, and it didn't sound like he felt strongly about it. I didn't respond to this and just let him continue.
The part he said needed the most work was the portions that dealt with suitability. That he understands that the theory is that police chiefs are the closest to, and would therefore be able to best determine suitability - but that currently there seems to be too many automatic or arbitrary denials. I wholeheartedly agreed, and told him about rep Leah Cole - a textbook case of someone that should be able to conceal carry to defend herself. Young female nurse working late shift, spotless criminal record, firearms experience since she was 12 - and still got a restricted license.
I talked about section 18, which would ban private face to face sales. That it requires both people to have valid licenses, and to fill out a form. That the state already has everything it needs to know whether the transaction was legal, and doing anything else was already illegal. He said he wasn't familiar with that portion of the bill, but will study it and consider both sides of the argument next week.
I talked about section 32, the one that gives Attorney General ability to remove firearms from approved firearms list. Again, not aware of this portion of bill. Sounded like he didn't know about the approved firearms roster at all. I said that the products available to those that live in MA are already very restricted already, that section 32 would be redundant and would just further complicate an already complex process.
I asked if it's possible to make amendments to the bill before it leaves committee - he said yes. I asked if it's just a few changes here and there, or if entire sections can be removed - he said depends on the bill, didn't have any expectations for this bill yet.
He sounded like he wanted to wrap up the call, so I just made one more point - that MA already is already one of the strictest when it comes to gun laws, and that many portions of this bill won't do anything useful, that another law on top of old ones that aren't followed is useless, and should be removed.
He thanked me, and I thanked him, and asked if I could contact him again next week to talk more about the bill and amendments. He said yes, sounded genuine about it, asked my home address to put me on some newsletter, and gave me his cell phone number.
My overall impression is that he's only skimmed the bill so far, and has only had a few conversations on a very limited portion of the bill. Seems like he hasn't read a single email from us. If he read the one I sent last week, or any of the ones I'm sure others are sending, he'd be much better informed. Could he be feigning ignorance to appease the pro 2A guy until the phone call is over? Maybe, but it didn't seem that way to me. I think he can be swayed - CALL HIM.
Last edited:
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
